Comparing the Musculoskeletal Profile of the Elderly With and Without History of Falling

• Main Authors: Hamzeh Hasanvand, Atefe Bagheri Sabzevar, Hadi Moradi, Aliasghar Norasteh
• Format: Article
• Language: fas
• Published: University of Social Welfare & Rehabilitation Sciences 2015-10-01
• Series: Sālmand
• Subjects: Musculoskeletal profile; Elderly; History of fall; Walking ability assessment
• Online Access: http://salmandj.uswr.ac.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-651-1&slc_lang=en&sid=1
• ISSN: 1735-806X; 1735-806X

Objectives: The purpose of current study was to study and compare the musculoskeletal profile of the elderly with and without the history of falling living at nursing homes in Rasht, Iran. Methods & Materials: A total of 54 elderly men and women, aged 60 years and older participated in this study. Of them, 16 (fall group) experienced a fall in the previous year [Mean(SD) of age: 79(9.90) years; height: 1.51(0.103) m; and weight: 60.03(11.12) kg] and 38 (no fall group) had no history of falling [Mean(SD) of age: 70.16(8.16) years; height: 1.56(0.11) m; and weight 65.6(14.93) kg]. The foot arch, distance between femoral condyles, kyphosis, lordosis, flexibility and the ability to walk were measured by ruler, caliper, flexible ruler, sit and reach test, and functional gait assessment questionnaires, respectively. Data analysis was done through independent t-test using SPSS. Study significance level was set at 0.05. Results: In the fall group the mean(SD) of measured variables were as follows: body mass index (BMI): 25.95(3.35) kg/m2; foot arch: 9.94(4.34) mm; flexibility: 8.25(6.38) cm, lordosis: 20.86(9.48) degree; kyphosis: 35.07(14.98) degree. And in no fall group, the same variables were as follows: BMI: 26.87(5.12) kg/m2; foot arch: 10.95(5.60) mm; flexibility: 8.16(5.24) cm; lordosis 26.66(14.78) degree; and kyphosis: 41.11(9.84) degree. These variables were not significantly different between the groups; however, the functional gait assessment and distance between femoral condyles test showed significant differences. In the group with a history of fall, the functional gait assessment and distance between femoral condyles were 12.50(7.07) and 2.74(2.38) cm and in the group without a history of fall functional gait assessment and distance between femoral condyles were 23.63(5.49) and 1.20(1.4) cm, respectively. According to the results, in the fall group, the distance between femoral condyles was more and the performance level was less (P≤0.05). Conclusion: Results showed that none of the variables of foot arch, flexibility, lordosis, and kyphosis were significantly different between 2 groups and were not risk factors for falling among older people. While the distance between femoral condyles and functional gait assessment in 2 groups were significantly different. It seems that functional gait assessment test and the distance between two condyles were the best indexes for the distinction between 2 groups. Perhaps, this method can be used as an appropriate way for predicting and consequently preventing the elderly from falling.